Academic Freedom Legislation Important Step To Save Universities From Themselves
The Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom (IUCAF), a subcommittee of the Free Speech Union, submitted today in support of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) 2025. The submission commends key strengths and provides several recommendations to ensure academic freedom is protected in New Zealand universities, says Professor Paul Moon, Co-Chairperson of IUCAF.
'Academic freedom is essential for universities to uphold if academics and students are to speak freely. We welcome the Education and Training Amendment Bill, which the Free Speech Union contributed to extensively, to protect and enable academics and students to speak without fear of retribution.
'Research by the Free Speech Union and others clearly shows that academic freedom is in jeopardy in New Zealand, despite being enshrined in the Education and Training Act. Universities are not currently doing the job they're legally obliged and publicly funded to do.
'We welcome the introduction of duties on universities to protect and promote academic freedom. We commend that the Bill would prevent universities from denying speakers based on controversial or unpopular opinions, and the introduction of annual reporting requirements.
'To ensure the Bill has the full effect of enhancing academic freedom in New Zealand, we have several recommendations. We've proposed that free speech policies avoid language that could actually limit speech, that a clear definition of 'institutional neutrality' is provided to avoid misunderstanding, and that annual reports be made publicly available.
'A culture of fear on our campuses has prevailed for too long. This is the reinforcement universities need to once again return to fostering open dialogue and debate.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
NZ First Bill Legislates 'New Zealand' As Official Name Of Country In Law
Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First New Zealand First has today introduced a Member's Bill that seeks to state in law that 'New Zealand' is the official geographic name of our country. 'Over the past few years, we have had a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments, and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth - with no permission or consent from the people' says Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First. The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country. 'The vast majority of New Zealanders are shocked at this insidious creep of misguided and misinformed cultural history of the name 'Aotearoa'.' 'Any true historian or cultural expert would know that it was never the original Māori name for New Zealand – and we should not allow it to be misused for cultural virtue signalling.' 'Colonialist William Pember Reeves incorrectly used 'Aotearoa' in the late nineteenth century, now the cultural hand-wringers have embraced his mindset.' 'Don't force the South Island's iwi Ngāi Tahu to use 'Aotearoa'. In 2021, Ngāi Tahu said the history of the name 'Aotearoa' originally referred solely to the North Island.' Putting the name 'New Zealand' in law will also provide constitutional clarity and legal certainty. 'The name 'New Zealand' is recognised around the world as the name of our country, and any uncertainty about that risks our global economic markets and political identity that we have built, and spent billions of dollars promoting, over many decades' says Mr Peters. 'Our country's name is New Zealand and should not change unless the people of our country decide to change it.'
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Bill to prohibit US President, Vice President and members of congress trading stocks advances
world world politics 16 minutes ago In the United States a bill that would prohibit members of Congress, the president and the vice president from trading stocks, has approval to advance in a committee vote. Politico reporter Josh Gerstein spoke to Corin Dann.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Mayor's vote seals decision to go with CCO
Queenstown mayor Glyn Lewers. PHOTO: ODT FILES A mayoral casting vote was needed to decide how Three Waters services will be delivered in the Queenstown Lakes district. After nearly three hours' debate at a full council meeting yesterday, Mayor Glyn Lewers used his vote to ensure council staff's recommended option of a council-controlled organisation (CCO) won the day. Councillors were evenly split on the issue, despite 77% of the 118 submissions received during community consultation favouring the retention of Three Waters services in house. In her report for councillors, strategy and reform manager Pennie Pearce said submitters' main concerns about a CCO had either already been addressed by her original analysis, or would be dealt with by amendments to the government's "Local Water Done Well" reforms. Since submissions had opened in June, amendments had been made to the Local Government (Water Services) Bill that strengthened the case for a CCO, Ms Pearce said. Asked by Cr Esther Whitehead whether the council's recommendation showed a disregard for the consultation process, chief executive Mike Theelen said it was not a "game of numbers". He urged councillors to make their decisions "based on the information and evidence before you". The decision means the council will transfer the district's drinking water, wastewater and stormwater assets — and associated liabilities — to a CCO, but will be its sole shareholder. Ms Pearce's analysis projects average annual water charges for households to be 10% lower under a CCO in the long term, compared with the in-house model. The CCO will operate independently from the council, with its own specialist board and management, although amendments to the Bill will require CCOs to consult with the community on matters of significance. The council's debt is expected to significantly decrease, giving it more headroom for other capital spending. Property and infrastructure general manager Tony Avery told councillors a CCO would be "singular in its purpose", faster to respond to changing circumstances and better placed to secure debt and expertise. Cr Lisa Guy said the small number of submissions — about 100 from a population of more than 50,000 — did not represent a mandate for keeping the status quo. Many submitters had opposed a CCO, but also criticised the existing model for its delivery of Three Waters services. "If we're in agreement the status quo isn't delivering, how can we not be open to a model that might provide us with hope of doing it better?" Cr Niki Gladding said they were making their decision in a "fear and pressure environment" arising from repeated staff warnings of how central government might react if they chose the in-house model. "Neither option is the status quo. Both are an improvement. "I don't see why we can't achieve the benefits of a CCO — bar losing the debt — with an excellent in-house model." Cr Matt Wong said he was wary of basing his decision on cost, because he was sceptical about the accuracy of financial projections over such a long time period. They were under pressure from the government to make a decision based on highly complex information and a great deal of uncertainty, and he joked he would "need a coin" to make his. "I hope the public listening today is not going to judge any one of us on which way we vote."
